{"id":325,"date":"2009-03-26T12:23:10","date_gmt":"2009-03-26T16:23:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/2009\/03\/26\/prejudicing-the-witness\/"},"modified":"2009-03-26T12:23:10","modified_gmt":"2009-03-26T16:23:10","slug":"prejudicing-the-witness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2009\/03\/26\/prejudicing-the-witness\/","title":{"rendered":"Prejudicing the Witness"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>What do we gain when reporters characterize the politics of those they quote in stories?&#160; There are legitimate arguments on both sides.&#160; By telling us that someone is a Democrat or Republican politician certainly provides useful information by which we can judge their observations.&#160; Politicians place first, obviously, politics.&#160; That provides an overall hue to their observations.&#160; How the issue is perceived is more important than the issue itself.&#160; So we should know if a comment is from a Republican or Democratic politician.<\/p>\n<p>But they aren\u2019t the only ones sought by reporters for comment.&#160; Often, researchers, academics and leaders whose organizations address political issues are sought as sources.&#160; Do they have a prejudice?&#160; Yes, likely.&#160; <\/p>\n<p>Why are these other sources cited by reporters?&#160; One would hope is that they provide perspectives that isn\u2019t wholly political.&#160; They needn\u2019t be political eunuchs, but hopefully they have some expertise or experience that informs their opinions. <\/p>\n<p>But reporters and editors apparently think that they must characterize almost everyone they quote.&#160; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2009\/03\/25\/AR2009032503117.html?hpid=topnews\">A story in today\u2019s Washington Post<\/a> is an example of what I think is characterization run amok.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Obama would have been better off capitalizing more fully on public ire but was being held back by the Rubin prot\u00e9g\u00e9s. <\/p>\n<p>&quot;He hurts himself enormously by being seen as associated with the bankers,&quot; Baker said. &quot;Purely pragmatically, you have an opportunity here where these Wall Street guys are really hated, they&#8217;ve been a really pernicious presence in the economy for a quarter-century, and the idea of jumping on them when they&#8217;re down makes a lot of sense. This idea that they&#8217;re going to help things &#8212; well, they&#8217;re not our buddies. There&#8217;s a real fundamental conflict there, and he&#8217;s hoping he can paper it over.&quot; <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Why do we need to know that the Center is \u201cleft-leaning\u201d?&#160; And what does that mean?&#160; That their research is not to be trusted?&#160; More important, Baker seems to be expressing an opinion of the politics of the issue and not a budget technicality.&#160; It\u2019s a legitimate and useful insight.&#160; But by characterizing his organization as left-leaning, the reporter prejudices Baker\u2019s comment.<\/p>\n<p>Another useful observation comes later in the article.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Michael Maslansky, a Republican-leaning pollster, questioned whether Obama could succeed in channeling public anger toward his longer-term goals after having initially helped stir the anger with his vow to retrieve the AIG bonuses. It would have been truer to Obama&#8217;s approach if he had right away put the episode in the context of his overall agenda, Maslansky said. <\/p>\n<p>&quot;It was a strategic mistake,&quot; Maslansky said. &quot;He&#8217;s supposed to lead, to skate to where the puck is going to be. Going after the bonuses was looking backwards. He should have said right away, &#8216;These bonuses are the last gasp of a dying culture.&#8217; He would&#8217;ve been much better off if this AIG thing hadn&#8217;t become such a big issue. . . . Now the White House says, &#8216;Wow, they really are angry, they have the pitchforks out, and they&#8217;re trying to kill the people I need [to fix Wall Street].&#8217; And the American people are watching and asking, &#8216;Is he a populist, or is he a cool, collected leader?&#8217; &quot; <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>What\u2019s a \u201cRepublican-leaning pollster\u201d?&#160; Someone who has his (right) thumb on the scale.&#160; If so, he\u2019s not a very useful pollster.&#160; His comment is legitimate.&#160; Let it stand on its own, and let the reader be the judge of its validity.<\/p>\n<p>As I wrote to the reporters this morning, <\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Both made comments that are legitimate and insightful.&#160; By telling us how they lean you discount their comments for the reader.&#160; If the comments are not to be trusted, why include them?<\/p>\n<p>[Later in the article is there\u2019s the quote] \u201cGeorgetown University historian Michael Kazin said the approach Obama has settled on is the best available: sharing the public&#8217;s ire,\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Now which way does he lean?&#160; Does he believe the Civil War was over states rights or slavery?&#160; Did New Deal regulations work or prolong the depression?&#160; Was Hitler a monster or \u201cwhat Holocaust?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>If reporters find observations that are helpful to the reader, journalists shouldn\u2019t prejudice the reader before the poor observer gets the words out of his mouth and into the paper.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What do we gain when reporters characterize the politics of those they quote in stories?&#160; There are legitimate arguments on both sides.&#160; By telling us that someone is a Democrat or Republican politician certainly provides useful information by which we can judge their observations.&#160; Politicians place first, obviously, politics.&#160; That provides an overall hue to&hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2009\/03\/26\/prejudicing-the-witness\/\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}